MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of February 27, 2001

The Academic Planning Committee met on February 27, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry Library.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Carol Freeman (CEP), Allison Galloway (CPB), Phokion Kolaitis (GC), Lynda Goff, Frank Talamantes, Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Steve Kang, Wlad Godzich, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: David Cope (COR), Burney Le Boeuf

Guests: Cathy Sandeen, John Hay (CPB), and Galen Jarvinen

1. Chair’s Announcements.

There were no announcements.

2. Approval of February 13 Minutes.

The Draft minutes of February 13 were approved without amendment.

3. Year Round Operations – UCSC State-Funded Summer Instruction

Chair Brown reiterated that the UCSC administration must decide by March 15 whether it plans to implement State-funded summer instruction in 2002 or 2003. As the committee agreed to at the February 13 meeting, a report addressing the academic program issues was distributed to inform discussion. Titled UCSC State-Funded Summer Instruction, it is available on the APC resource site. Operational and student service impacts will be addressed in a following document. VPAA Brown will formally consult with the appropriate senate committees [COR, GC, CEP, CPB, CAP, Admissions, and Faculty Welfare] and ask them to report back by APC’s March 13 meeting. At that meeting, APC will make a recommendation to the Provost’s Advisory Council regarding implementing summer instruction. Because PAC meets prior to APC, APC will switch meeting times to ensure PAC receives the committee’s recommendation before the campus deadline.

Discussion followed focusing on two major concerns: 1) impact on faculty and 2) impact on the academic program. Solving identified problems is less important at this time than determining the optimum start time.

Gradual phasing in and expansion of summer instruction is consistent with current UCOP criteria. The campuses located in major urban regions may be positioned more competitively for summer enrollments. Departments will vary in their level of participation; some departments are heavily invested in summer quarter (Education Masters) while others may not initially participate. UCOP enrollment growth expectations are 40% of an average student workload during fall, winter and spring quarter will be accommodated in summer, either on or off campus. Off-campus programs might include UCDC, field internships, or courses located at the existing Extension facilities in Cupertino and the emerging Silicon Valley Center. Utilizing summer instruction is a key UCOP strategy in meeting state enrollment demands. Future funding requests for new classrooms and teaching laboratories will be based on this assumption.

Departments are expected to reconfigure curriculum breadth and faculty teaching loads over a four-quarter year. Faculty assigned to teach in summer will ordinarily take another quarter off. This will result in additional faculty absence during peak periods of department administrative processes (faculty recruitments, personnel actions, and graduate student admissions).

Summer Session Dean Cathy Sandeen estimates that there is significant student demand for summer courses offered in the Silicon Valley to UC matriculated students who live in the region. Programs offered could be distinct from community college and San Jose State offerings.

Concern was expressed over the level of faculty compensation and commitment required to successfully launch summer quarter. Permanent state funding will be available to “buy out” the existing 350 student FTE supported by current summer session programs. Increasing enrollment and faculty participation can be phased in over a multiple year transition period. Typical summer program structure is 2 five-week instruction periods. This benefits some disciplines, notably languages, but is sub-optimal for others. Summer instruction can be flexibly offered with multiple course length configurations. The structure must not compromise academic quality.

New ladder faculty FTE funded with summer enrollments will partially alleviate the faculty shortfall. However during the transition period, lecturers, visiting ladder faculty, and emeriti may contribute significantly. Faculty may volunteer to teach on an overload basis. Care must be taken to protect junior faculty from overload situations, which place them at risk of delaying their research programs. It may be possible for ladder faculty to co-teach a ten-week course. Increased faculty flexibility may be attractive to many.

Programs significantly benefiting from summer instruction include intensive student internships, sequence courses, pre-requisites, enrollment impacted departments, special programs offered only in the summer (Shakespeare Santa Cruz, conferences); and bridge programs targeted to new frosh and transfer students. Composition courses may fit well in a summer structure; however, there are problems regarding the Subject A requirement. Some faculty believe that students best learn writing skills when the material is immersed within regular curriculum. Students for whom English is their second language (ESL) may benefit from summer programs.

Teaching Assistant availability and high out-of-state student fees may discourage graduate students from summer enrollment. Financial aid packages will be reconfigured; the intention is that students will receive aid equal to fall, winter and spring. Qualified Teaching Assistants are becoming increasingly difficult to hire during conventional quarters as undergraduate growth outpaces graduate student growth. Participating department chairs may need to be compensated at an 11-month rate to oversee curriculum and student advising.

If the campus elects to commence state-funded summer instruction in 2002, permanent funding resources will begin flowing to the campus in July, 2002.

4. Members Items. No items were presented.

Attest: George Brown, Chair